I’m all for political protest. Unlike some recently judicially created rights, free speech and political protest is actually a fundamental right, with a long and well respected history of Constitutional protection, both at the state and federal levels. I’ve watched, as I’m sure many have, the political upheaval and fallout from California’s citizens exercising their fundamental right to amend the constitution of their own state. That is still a protected fundamental right isn’t it?–the right of the people to vote, to express their mandate at the ballot box. That’s still a protected fundamental right, reserved by the people to define the social and political mandates of society? I’ve tried to channel some thoughts in response to all this protest–in no particular order of importance:

1. The right of the minority to protest is certainly a valid exercise of their fundamental rights, provided it is kept within reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. They can even carry obnoxious, mean spirited and bigoted messages on their signs:

2. What is troubling, however, is the targeting of a specific religous group for the exercise of, again, their own fundamental constitutional rights to express their religious and political views at the ballot box:

Supporters of gay marriage, frustrated over a ballot-box defeat in California, have channeled much of their anger toward the towering white spires of Mormon temples.

Since the measure’s passage last week, media outlets reported chants of “Mormon scum” and slurs against church founder Joseph Smith at a demonstration outside a Los Angeles-area temple, and a church meeting-house was vandalized. More Mormon-specific protests are in the works.

The backlash against Mormons has ignited a debate over whether the church deserves to be singled out for what opponents believe was a dishonest campaign or is an easy political target as a minority religion that has taken plenty of lumps.

“I think it is a purely tactical reaction from those who are supporting gay marriage because if it can be made to appear the opposition is essentially one religion that is, frankly, an often misunderstood religion, it’s easier to make the case that the other side is reasonable,” said Michael Otterson, spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church.

3. If there is any question that so called gay rights and religious liberties are not on a collision course, the recent targeting and vilification of a specific religious group should answer that question loud and clear:

4. The vast majority of appellate courts across America have rejected the so-called “fundamental right” to gay marriage. When asked in 1972 in Baker v Nelson, to consider this same legal question, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a federal question. Only two of 50 states currently recognize such a right. Forty four states have statutory definitions of marriage as between a man and woman. Now, thirty of those states have constitutional amendments defining marriage between a man and woman. Three of those amendments were enacted just last week, in Arizona, Florida and California. The votes in Florida and Arizona were not even close. And, there’s a reason for the number of constitutional amendments. The reason is activist judges making up new constitutional and fundamental rights out of whole cloth, with no constitutional precedent in support. That is why a majority of states have enshrined a man/woman definition of marriage right into their constitution.

So, the question naturally arises, are all 48 of the majority of The United States which deny gay marriage comprised of bigoted hateful people? Are 48 out of the 50 states improperly discriminating against gays by denying them the so-called fundamental right of gay marriage? Do the vast majority of American voters, who have spoken on this issue throughout the 48 other states hate gays? Is gay marriage only a fundamental right in Connecticut and Massachusetts and not the other 48 states? How can that be? Can you imagine not being able to vote in 48 of the 50 states, or politically protest and express your religious and political opinions in 48 of 50 states?

If gay marriage is a fundamental a right so objectively and deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if gay marriage were sacrificed–how can 48 of the 50 states not recognize such a fundamental right? How can this be? Why have gay rights advocates not petitioned the federal courts to enforce this fundamental right nationwide? The 14th Amendment allows the United States federal courts to require states to recognize and protect fundamental rights. If gay marriage were truly such a fundamental right–why aren’t the federal courts falling over themselves to bring all the other 48 renegade, bigoted and hateful states into line?

5. Just exactly what rights have been lost? Our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers have all the same rights afforded under California Law to married man/woman couples. Is anyone actually sitting at the back of the bus? Is anyone forced to use separate bathrooms, lunch counters, drinking fountains, housing, business facilities? No! Kaimi has a very good post up over at BCC, which if you haven’t seen you should.

California is one of the most, if not the most progressive state in the protection of gay rights. California has an extremely comprehensive domestic partnership statutory framework. There are anti-discrimination laws codified in California’s Unruh Act which protect and have protected lesbians and gays for many years in California. But, to listen to the recent spate of political protests one would come away thinking an entire minority has been cast off from civilized society to wander in the rightless wilderness of limbo forever. That is simply not the case.

6. Only two percent of California residents are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their votes could not possibly have carried Proposition 8 to victory. The media analysis reflects very strong support from the African-America community. Why are there not protests is south central Los Angeles or Compton? Hispanic Americans also favored Proposition 8. How come no protests is East Los Angeles? Is it because it is more politically popular to pick on Mormons because of their religious beliefs? Be careful if that is the road down which gay rights activists dare to tread.

7. Isn’t is just a bit late for the No on 8 supporters to come out of the woodwork after November 4 to express their political viewpoint? Of course, they have a constitutionally protected fundamental right to these protests; but, where they hell were they on the second Tuesday of November, 2008? And, why don’t they propose their own constitutional amendment, follow the same constitutionally allowable amendment process? Why not propose their ideas and their own definition of marriage before the voters? They could draft an amendment saying something like Marriage between two persons of the same gender is valid and recognized in California. Put that simple proposition before the voters, and have an up or down vote. That is what will change the California constitution. Parading up and down Santa Monica Boulevard with hate signs doesn’t get the job done.

You mean they can only accomplish in a very small minority of courts that which they cannot accomplish the ballot box? It isn’t a tyranny of the majority, Bill, when the vast majority of construction of American constitutional jurisprudence rejects “gay marriage.” It then becomes the fundamental rights of the majority to exercise their own constitutional rights.

Are you really suggesting almost the entirety of Americans are tyrants, bigots, and hateful people? Do you have any objective support for such a wild proposition, other than your own say so?

It isn’t so much that the majority of the country are tyrants, bigots, or hateful people. They simply do not understand the Constitution. Regardless of why you voted for this, it IS discrimination to treat one set of citizens different from another. There’s no way around that.

You can’t legislate Christian morality among an entire state or nation of citizens. They are not all Christians. And even if they were, which religion’s interpretations would you use to establish universal law of the land?

You have to learn how to separate your personal morality from what is needed as laws that are applicable to all citizens.

(I reserve that for the religious leaders trying to legislate morality), bigots

It isn’t so much that the majority of the country are tyrants, bigots, or hateful people. They simply do not understand the Constitution.

Whoa, slow down there. The majority of U.S. citizens in various states, or the majority of state legislatures representing the voice of the people of the various states have voted exactly the same as California residents to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The votes by California’s residents can’t be bigoted and hateful while the votes of the rest of the country are not.

Have you considered the possibility that perhaps it is you and others with your viewpoint who don’t understand the various state constitutions? Again, the vast majority of appellate courts which have considered this legal argument, this constitutional argument have rejected it outright.

In 1972 when the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider this very question, they dismissed the appeal for lack of a federal question, i.e., there is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. So, the federal courts reject this legal/constitutional argument.

You can’t legislate Christian morality among an entire state or nation of citizens.

Really? Should we repeal all state and federal penal codes outlawing murder, theft, prostitution–all of which are directly based upon and grounded in Christian morality?

As a Christian and Latter Day Saint, I believe that marriage is an eternal institution established by God to be between one man and one woman, and that no government can legitimately alter that. As an American and a voter, I believe in democracy and the supremacy of the people. For these reasons, the liberal activism of the California Supreme Court offended me. It is not the place of the judiciary to make laws, and it is certainly not the place of a judge to stick his or her finger in the proverbial winds of culture to decide cases.

We are at heart a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. Being a Christian nation does not mean an autocratic theocracy, but it also does not mean that we should accept the redefinition of sin into virtue. These gay marriage court decisions are undermining the foundations of our constitutional democracy and damaging our American culture.

Have you considered the possibility that perhaps it is you and others with your viewpoint who don’t understand the various state constitutions?

Are you suggesting that supporters of [causes that Guy Murray favors] are constitutional scholars?

While I am always open to counter-intuitive ideas, your claim would seem to run contrary to the standardized testing scores, employment figures and other measures of legal prowess of “the majority of U.S. citizens in various states.”

Guy, how can you even blink at American history and deny that the “will of the people” has allowed and endorsed discrimination repeatedly? Loving vs Virginia is prime example of the judicial system saying that what has happened under tradition and majority opinion is wrong.

When the will of the people is wrong and treats one group of citizens differently from another group, regardless of how many citizens want it to be so, it is discrimination.

I know that Mormons under attack have made it a big point to say they’re only 2% of the California voters, but c’mon guy, we all know they gave the majority of the money which funded the campaign that got people to vot for 8.

Also, it may be bigoted, but that sign that says “Brigham young had 20 wives, I only want one” (or something to that effect) really cracks me up.

“When the will of the people is wrong and treats one group of citizens differently from another group, regardless of how many citizens want it to be so, it is discrimination.”

Then lets get rid of senior citizen discounts, child discounts and any other discriminatory practice that treats people differently. Get rid of hiring quotas, affirmative action, and reparations for slavery. All these things treat one group different than another.

If there is any question that so called gay rights and religious liberties are not on a collision course, the recent targeting and vilification of a specific religious group should answer that question loud and clear

Now, Guy, quit lying. There wouldn’t have been any collision if the Mormons had just sat down, shut up, and yielded the field of debate (and legislation) to the gay-rights advocates.

In the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, the supporters and opponents have reacted very differently. Opponents have staged protests around the country filled with anger and frustration. From supporters, the main emotion I feel is puzzlement. They don’t understand why Prop. 8 should have provoked such an enormous response. I would like to share both sides of the issue in the hopes that it will contribute to the understanding of others.

The main problem is with the definition of “marriage”. In its core is the “husband-wife” relationship (“the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” — US Legal Code). So when you enter into marriage, you become part of a husband-wife relationship. However, there is also a set of cultural behaviors attributed to this word — the most common are love and commitment. (Note that the behaviors change between cultures; arranged marriages don’t require love, but they do form the husband-wife relationship.)

With this background, let me address the different sides.

For supporters trying to understand those who oppose:

Proponents of same-sex marriage have been taught that marriage is not a husband-wife relationship, but a set of behaviors. Since the word “marriage” is seen as societally-recognized love and commitment, a “domestic partnership” must be something else; a “separate but equal” version that makes them second-class citizens. This is why there is so much anger and frustration over it being taken away.

For opponents trying to understand the supporters:

Supporters of Prop. 8 honestly believe that marriage is just as it’s defined: a husband-wife relationship. Since no same-sex union will ever create a husband-wife relationship, they don’t see it as discriminatory to call the union between two men or the union between two women as something else. It honestly puzzles them why domestic partnerships with all of the rights and responsibilities of spouses under CA law is not enough.

One thing that needs to be made clear is that the democratic republic system is meant to give voice to the majority while electing the leaders by democratic vote and then those who are supposedly the wisest among us are to lead. As they lead, wisdom ought to prevail over the will of the majority IF the majority will is unwise. If the majority votes in an unwise leader, they have recouse in the next election.

The deception in the political landscape makes it hard for the average citizen to sort through the propaganda. Some propositions/bonds/measures are meant to deceive where a “no” vote is actually a “yes”. Uninformed voters of good conscience or those who just dont care to look past the rhetoric have votes that count just as much as the most informed voter. So, a polished speaker, or a charismatic person can get elected without the best interest of the people–very common in today’s politics I think.

This is the reason why the ballot proposition system is so popular, the people had to have recourse and a voice to by pass the self serving polititian. Prop. 13 was a revolt by the people to stop the government from fleecing them with property taxes. Prop.8 is a revolt by the people to stop the activist judges from forcing equal and approved status of same sex unions onto the culture.

It’s really backwards, and speaks of the blindness of the masses. [The Dewey influence on American education has succeded in making manageable sheep, easy to shepherd to their own slaughter–not completely though]. May God bring enlightenment to truth, not as it relates to popular opinion or the wisdom of man, but as to how it relates to the reality of the Creation.

Supporters of Prop. 8 honestly believe that marriage is just as it’s defined: a husband-wife relationship. Since no same-sex union will ever create a husband-wife relationship, they don’t see it as discriminatory to call the union between two men or the union between two women as something else. It honestly puzzles them why domestic partnerships with all of the rights and responsibilities of spouses under CA law is not enough.

The problem with that claim is that (1) domestic partnership is not equal to marriage (2) it was exceedingly noticeable that the “Yes on 8” campaigners were not propagandising over “Marriage is a word that ought only to be used for a male/female relationship” but were using (distorted, twisted) examples of any efforts towards LGBT equality or educational prevention of homophobic bullying: and (3) in the UK, where the UK government took seriously the claim that the problem was only the word “marriage”, and civil partnerships were created that really do give civilly-partnered couples all the rights of married couples – then, the Christian right complained and campaigned against civil partnership, because this was (they said) “gay marriage in all but name“. (See the case of Lillian Ladele, for example, who protested having to conduct civil partnerships as part of her work as a registrar, and who was supported by the Christian right in the UK.)

Civil Unions in CA do NOT give the identical rights to gay couples as married heterosexual couples enjoy and take for granted. Discrimination, whether by the “will of the people” or voted for at the ballot box is still discrimination.